or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Lies and the Presidency
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lies and the Presidency - Page 5  

post #161 of 561
Look, even Bush is shifting away from saying they will find weapons:

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml...toryID=2900635

This isn't news to those of us that bother to actually educate ourselves, but when are the rest of you going to wake up?
post #162 of 561
You are showing a decided lack of reading comprehension.

Let me hit you with a little Blix myself.

Quote:
By contrast, the task of disarmament foreseen in resolution 687 (1991) and the progress on key remaining disarmament tasks foreseen in resolution 1284 (1999) as well as the disarmament obligations, which Iraq was given a final opportunity to comply with under resolution 1441 (2002), were always required to be fulfilled in a shorter time span. Regrettably, the high degree of cooperation required of Iraq for disarmament through inspection was not forthcoming in 1991. Despite the elimination, under UNSCOM and IAEA supervision, of large amounts of weapons, weapons-related items and installations over the years, the task remained incomplete, when inspectors were withdrawn almost 8 years later at the end of 1998.



If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament under resolution 687 (1991) could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if immediate, active and unconditional cooperation with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming.

Note to you... 2003, still not disarmed.



Quote:
We have now commenced the process of destroying approximately 50 litres of mustard gas declared by Iraq that was being kept under UNMOVIC seal at the Muthanna site. One-third of the quantity has already been destroyed. The laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, which we found at another site, has also been destroyed.

Note mustard gas, declared and being destroyed..in 2003 along with findings of the precursor..

Quote:
How much, if any, is left of Iraqs weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed. Another matter and one of great significance is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were unaccounted for. One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

No, we wouldn't want to jump to any conclusions. I mean sure we found SOME MORE undeclared and undestroyed munitions, and hey what is a 1,000 tonnes among us friends..right? I mean the whole lack of evidence thing, not a big deal given your history.

I could go on, but anyone here with half a brain and some sense already gets the point.

UN - Blix

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #163 of 561
poor you:


Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Let me hit you with a little Blix myself.

No, let me hit you with some Blix:
Quote:
On May 23, 2002, Blix told the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel: I am obviously very interested in the question of whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction, and I am beginning to suspect there possibly were none.

See, what you quoted was an overall assessment that uses the term 'disarm' in a broad manner that encompasses the entire work of the UN in Iraq. Furthermore, what UNMOVIC needed was more documentation and proof of weapons destruction. In other words, UNMOVIC's work is to prove or disporve disarmament, and UNMOVIC's conclusion was NOT that Iraq had WMD but that there were loose ends to tie up. If you want to know what those loose ends are, you have to do some actual research and read many documents and analyses like the one I posted earlier. Otherwise, you have no idea what he is talking about.

In short, Blix comments you quoted do not state that Iraq has WMD, much less weapons that threaten the US.

Quote:
Note mustard gas, declared and being destroyed..in 2003 along with findings of the precursor..

You are so pitiful. That mustard gas was already known to UNSCOM and put under UN seal. Furthermore, it was an example of Iraqi compliance since it remained untouched between inspection periods.

Quote:
To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were unaccounted for.

This is why I ask for SPECIFICS. Do you even know what chemicals those were? I don't think you do. I know what it is. What part of the Iraqi military did that document come from? It's a famous document, so it would be expected that someone citing it should know.

I really have no problem dropping another 'giant bomb' on you about this one.

Here's a couple key words for you: stabilizers, Iran war.
post #164 of 561
giant,

It is certainly not that I can't comprehend your ridiculously long posts. It is simply unnecessary to pick them apart. Sometimes forming a position on something should come from the simplest argument.

Have you never heard of Ockham's Razor? In other words, "all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be true".

You can bomb the board with all of the lengthy, entire article reposts you want, but you can't change the basic facts.

Fact: We know Saddam had WMD's in 1988, 1991, 1995 and 1998.

Fact: We know he used then against his own people in 1988

Fact. We know he is hostile to the US and Irsrael.

Fact: We know he murdered his own people and ruled with absolute brutality.

Fact: We know the inspectors were not present in his country for five years.


Given the above facts, and taking into account Ockham's Razor:

What is more likely, that he still had WMD, or that, in a complete and utter change in his character and past tactics, decided to give up his program WITHOUT international supervision?

giant, you can insult me all you want. I really don't care. This entire argument is just plain semantics and hair-splitting. OF COURSE Saddam had WMD. Please.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #165 of 561
Ooooh, SDW makes the winning point:
There is no evidence that Saddam DIDN'T have WMD.

This is more important (for those wishing to objectively view the situation) than proving he did have them. It is far easier for him to prove he doesn't than it is for any outside body to prove he does.

And beside that, it was his responsibility to prove he didn't have them. Something else "you guys" like to ignore.

Look at the truth of the situation.
- On February 28th (~4 weeks before bombs) Blix said disarmament was "very limited". Even with Iraq's increased cooperation.
- On March 3rd he didn't ask for more time because Iraq's disarmament history was so poor.
"They have been very active I would say, even pro-active in the last month or so. But in the past the track record was not so good and therefore I would not want to suggest that I am confident that this will happen. I would not want to base a request that would intimate that assumption."

-

So you have the two most important questions with undeniable answers:
1) Was Iraq disarmed? No.
2) Was Iraq going to disarm? Unclear leaning towards No.

It wasn't anyone's job to find WMD, it was Hussein's duty to produce them or evidence of their destruction. He didn't so he got a spanking.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #166 of 561
That's nice except for all the reasons that this thread existed even before the war . . .namely that it was apparent that many informed sources did not quite feel the arguement was up to snuff . . .with such things as plagiarized reports, balking CIA info agents and the refusal to lead the inspectors, who were very much in the country at the time, to those supposed spots that we were supposedly so certain of that we would send in our boys . . . .
but besides all those things and there were more than I listed, sure, no proof he didn't have WMD

But then again there is not proof as far as we know that the county of Santa Cruz California doesn't have WMD . . . that doesn't prove that they do though.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

post #167 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Ooooh, SDW makes the winning point:
There is no evidence that Saddam DIDN'T have WMD.

This is more important (for those wishing to objectively view the situation) than proving he did have them. It is far easier for him to prove he doesn't than it is for any outside body to prove he does.

And beside that, it was his responsibility to prove he didn't have them. Something else "you guys" like to ignore.

Look at the truth of the situation.
- On February 28th (~4 weeks before bombs) Blix said disarmament was "very limited". Even with Iraq's increased cooperation.
- On March 3rd he didn't ask for more time because Iraq's disarmament history was so poor.
"They have been very active I would say, even pro-active in the last month or so. But in the past the track record was not so good and therefore I would not want to suggest that I am confident that this will happen. I would not want to base a request that would intimate that assumption."

-

So you have the two most important questions with undeniable answers:
1) Was Iraq disarmed? No.
2) Was Iraq going to disarm? Unclear leaning towards No.

It wasn't anyone's job to find WMD, it was Hussein's duty to produce them or evidence of their destruction. He didn't so he got a spanking.





But the fact still remains that this war ( it doesn't matter what you based it on ) was based on ( by our president ) that Saddam had WOMD and was a threat. Now it seems neither one was true. If it was where's the proof? The american public still hasn't seen it. You're full of doggy doo doo if you think that doesn't matter. No winning point there. You'll have to do better than dancing around the issue like that. Sheesh!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #168 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
giant,

It is certainly not that I can't comprehend your ridiculously long posts. It is simply unnecessary to pick them apart. Sometimes forming a position on something should come from the simplest argument.

Have you never heard of Ockham's Razor? In other words, "all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be true".

You can bomb the board with all of the lengthy, entire article reposts you want, but you can't change the basic facts.

Fact: We know Saddam had WMD's in 1988, 1991, 1995 and 1998.

Fact: We know he used then against his own people in 1988

Fact. We know he is hostile to the US and Irsrael.

Fact: We know he murdered his own people and ruled with absolute brutality.

Fact: We know the inspectors were not present in his country for five years.


Given the above facts, and taking into account Ockham's Razor:

What is more likely, that he still had WMD, or that, in a complete and utter change in his character and past tactics, decided to give up his program WITHOUT international supervision?

giant, you can insult me all you want. I really don't care. This entire argument is just plain semantics and hair-splitting. OF COURSE Saddam had WMD. Please.



PROOF!

I know all about Ockham's Razor. Since none of the " facts " you've listed above are the justification Bush listed for starting this war ( Saddam had WOMD and was a threat to us ) they are irrelevent to this thread. The fact that proof has yet to be presented to the american people as to why the lives and money were spent the simplest answer would be that Bush had another agenda and lied. Which is relevent to this thread and a fine example of Ockham's Razor.




Still in check.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #169 of 561
pfflam:

Quote:
But then again there is not proof as far as we know that the county of Santa Cruz California doesn't have WMD . . . that doesn't prove that they do though.

That would be clever if it weren't for two glaring problems.
- Santa Cruz, California hasn't been inspected, put under sanction and formally reprimanded and threatened with war (both by the UN and by the Unilateral States of Unilateralstan) over a dozen years because of WMD.
- Santa Cruz, California isn't ruled by a tyrant with a history of territorial aggression.

Good effort, though, you almost made sense.

The UN wasn't obligated to find a damned thing, Iraq was obligated to answer every single question, and they were supposed to do it in 1991. Read the resolutions.

We can say Bush lied, sure, but to act like it was the UN's or even the US's responsibility under law to find them then you're lying worse than Bush ever did, because at that point it isn't even ambiguous how wrong you are.

--

jimmac:

Thanks for continuing to have nothing to add.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #170 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
pfflam:



That would be clever if it weren't for two glaring problems.
- Santa Cruz, California hasn't been inspected, put under sanction and formally reprimanded and threatened with war (both by the UN and by the Unilateral States of Unilateralstan) over a dozen years because of WMD.
- Santa Cruz, California isn't ruled by a tyrant with a history of territorial aggression.

Good effort, though, you almost made sense.

The UN wasn't obligated to find a damned thing, Iraq was obligated to answer every single question, and they were supposed to do it in 1991. Read the resolutions.

We can say Bush lied, sure, but to act like it was the UN's or even the US's responsibility under law to find them then you're lying worse than Bush ever did, because at that point it isn't even ambiguous how wrong you are.

--

jimmac:

Thanks for continuing to have nothing to add.

Exactly. Santa Cruz also didn't demonstrate their possession and willingness to use WMD by using the weapons on the people IN Santa Cruz.

jimmac:

Quote:
The fact that proof has yet to be presented to the american people as to why the lives and money were spent the simplest answer would be that Bush had another agenda and lied. Which is relevent to this thread and a fine example of Ockham's Razor.





So, the simplest explanation is that the President of the United States had some secret ulterior motive (based on financial and political profit) and thereby convinced the Prime Minister of Great Britain to go along with his evil plan even though the War was tremendously unpopular in his country? The simplest explanation is that George Bush went to war on a personal vendetta in order to divert attention from the economy when the next Presidential election was still 18 months away and economy was already beginning its recovery cycle?

Yes, quite reasonable and simple. Ockham is turning over in his grave right now.


Once again, there is no reasonable argument for Saddam NOT having WMD. There just isn't.

Goverat was right. Liberals, in particular, think it was the UN's and United States' responsibility. It's as if they believe that WE were the ones legally bound to find WMD. This is the same thing the French and Germans, not to mention Russians did. But, it wasn't the US and UN (and the UK) that were bound by special sanctions, resolutions and ultimatums! It was Saddam's regime!!! The burden of proof was on SADDAM HUSSEIN! Leading up to war, however, we had people here running around asking where the "smoking gun" was. Ummmm...OK.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq was bound by 17 UN reslutions to FULLY disarm. Not one person here can tell me he did that. Not one! The UN knew Saddam didn't totally disarm. We knew it, Iraq knew it, even Chirac knew it! It wasn't even a question. Saddam Hussein was required to provide evidence of destruction of his WMD. He didn't. End of story. And don't go telling me "one can't prove a negative". In this case, there were a multitude of ways Saddam could have proved he had destroyed his WMD. If he hadn't, he could have easily have shown the inspectors were they were and allowed the to destroy them. Instead, we had, as the President appropriately put it in his State of the Union Address, a "Scavenger Hunt" for weapons. That was never the intention of the inspection process.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #171 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat


The UN wasn't obligated to find a damned thing, Iraq was obligated to answer every single question, and they were supposed to do it in 1991. Read the resolutions.

The US wasn't obligated or legally able to DO a damn thing if Iraq failed to live up to its obligations.

Why do you post such innane comments?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #172 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001

Saddam Hussein's Iraq was bound by 17 UN reslutions to FULLY disarm. Not one person here can tell me he did that. Not one! The UN knew Saddam didn't totally disarm. We knew it, Iraq knew it, even Chirac knew it! It wasn't even a question. Saddam Hussein was required to provide evidence of destruction of his WMD. He didn't. End of story. And don't go telling me "one can't prove a negative". In this case, there were a multitude of ways Saddam could have proved he had destroyed his WMD. If he hadn't, he could have easily have shown the inspectors were they were and allowed the to destroy them. Instead, we had, as the President appropriately put it in his State of the Union Address, a "Scavenger Hunt" for weapons. That was never the intention of the inspection process.

It's not a negative if you don't let them change the statement/question.

Prove you don't have WOMD.

vs.

Prove you destroyed your WOMD.

They keep stating the first one because they really have deluded themselves into believing he never had them.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #173 of 561
Before the war we were told that there was overwhelming evidence that Iraq had WMD which it would either provide to terrorist organizations or eventually use on the US and its allies. When we (you know, we the people) asked to see this evidence we were told that the sources needed to be protected from Saddam Hussein, that releasing the evidence would endanger their lives and end their usefulness.

Hussein is gone. Iraq is 'free'. We have yet to see the evidence.When troops went into those locations that we were allowed to hear about? Nothing.

The only remaining question seems to be whether our governments and intelligence services were lying or merely riddled with incompetent morons.
post #174 of 561
bunge:

Quote:
The US wasn't obligated or legally able to DO a damn thing if Iraq failed to live up to its obligations.

Why do you post such innane comments?

1) I never said the US was obligated to do anything.
2) You cannot prove that they are legally unable. Simply saying its illegal does not make it so.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #175 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
The US wasn't obligated or legally able to DO a damn thing if Iraq failed to live up to its obligations.

Why do you post such innane comments?

You are posting the innane drivel because in your head it is still "illegal" for the U.S. to act in its own interest instead of through the U.N. Bush acted in full accordance of U.S. law. He secured permission of the full Congress of the United States. He did nothing illegal. He acted to protect the United States which he is obligated to do via the Constitution.

As for what the U.N. requires... do me a favor. Find for me ANY resolution on Iraq where it states any actual consequence for noncompliance. All they do from my reading, is just "condemn" Iraq.

So the debating society "condemns" Iraq repeatedly and folks like yourself are confused as to why folks don't consider that an effective means of making the world safer.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #176 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Ooooh, SDW makes the winning point:
There is no evidence that Saddam DIDN'T have WMD.

Actually, that's the opposite of the truth. All available evidence points to disarmament and discontinuation of weapons programs.

You you guys keep ignoring is that when you read general statements like 'chemical weapons' and 'unanswered questions' they are talking about very specific things. I've already pointed out the anthrax example. Factors like margin of error, which in reality has to be accounted for, is ignored by the Bush admin. The discrepancy in chemical weapons comes from a single document. Even with that possible discrepancy, most of those chemicals would be useless.

This is what UNMOVIC talks about when working to 'account' for these materials. The more you get away from the rhetoric and actually examine the evidence, the more you realize that Iraq simply does not have a large weapons program anymore. Period. That's why it is not surprising at all that nothing has turned up.

It is fully revealed that the intel that led to the belief in Iraqi WMD programs was heavily politically skewed and at times completely fabricated. But if you look at primary sources, it's obvious that the accusations put out by the Bush admin are skewed exagerations or outright fabrications that take advantage of the fact that most people are too lazy to actually inform themselves.
post #177 of 561
Quote:
He acted to protect the United States which he is obligated to do via the Constitution.

From what, all those weapons of mass distruction we keep finding everywhere in Iraq?
post #178 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Before the war we were told that there was overwhelming evidence that Iraq had WMD which it would either provide to terrorist organizations or eventually use on the US and its allies. When we (you know, we the people) asked to see this evidence we were told that the sources needed to be protected from Saddam Hussein, that releasing the evidence would endanger their lives and end their usefulness.

The only source they had other than the UN were Chalabi's people, who have been exposed as frauds. The Bush admin is trying to sweep this under the rug.
post #179 of 561
Some here found what they think is an escape pad. "But where did the WoMDs go?". A very interesting question but not the one we are arguing here. We are talking about the assertion about the requirering of uran, Permanent and mobile production facilities, links to Al quada etc.

If bush had said "we know he had these thing at that time. Saddam haven´t said how he got rid of them so he must still have them." then you have a point. BUT he didn´t. Bush (with Powell as proxy) told the world that there were actual proofs of weapons production here and now and thats what we are arguing about here.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
post #180 of 561
The Bush Administration mentioned the previous violated resolutions and the lack of success from UNMOVIC ad nauseum. They also said they KNEW they had WMD, but that doesn't cancel out all the other arguments they made.

I know you don't want to stray because it leaves you defenseless, but the issue is much larger than you make it seem.

You can't dispute these things.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #181 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Some here found what they think is an escape pad. "But where did the WoMDs go?". A very interesting question but not the one we are arguing here. We are talking about the assertion about the requirering of uran, Permanent and mobile production facilities, links to Al quada etc.

If bush had said "we know he had these thing at that time. Saddam haven´t said how he got rid of them so he must still have them." then you have a point. BUT he didn´t. Bush (with Powell as proxy) told the world that there were actual proofs of weapons production here and now and thats what we are arguing about here.

I agree 100%. The Bush admin made specific accusations, none of which panned out. Powell cited specific buildings, all of which have turned out to have nothing to do with weapons production. Most of those sites turned out to have completely different uses, so the weapons were not moved from there.

As fot the whole theory that the weapons were moved, it completely ignores the fact of what weapons Iraq actually had as well as the fact that no productions facilities, which would have been large enough to know about even before the war, exist in Iraq. This theory is just another one put out there taking advantage of people who don't inform themselves.
post #182 of 561
Plus the fact that Iraq admitted to and declared these weapons and then refused to destroy all of them.

We aren't even getting into the conjecture. If they said they only ran their Anthrax facility at 20% of it's production capability, we aren't arguing the other 80% here. Rather they didn't even destroy the 20%.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #183 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
The Bush Administration mentioned the previous violated resolutions and the lack of success from UNMOVIC ad nauseum. They also said they KNEW they had WMD, but that doesn't cancel out all the other arguments they made.

I know you don't want to stray because it leaves you defenseless, but the issue is much larger than you make it seem.

You can't dispute these things.

I have proof that you killed Kennedy, Ena is from Mars and Apple just lowered the price of their iBook.

Now do the least comment prevent me from being a liar?
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
post #184 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
The Bush Administration mentioned the previous violated resolutions and the lack of success from UNMOVIC ad nauseum.

I don't see why it is so damn difficult for people to post specific information that was cited by the Bush admin as a threat that justified war. Violation of UN resolutions in itself is not a justification for war. The violations in this instance were portrayed as a THREAT TO THE US. This is why this war happened. Not because Iraq had more sloan valves than it was allow. This war happened because the Bush admin portrayed Iraq and it's violations as a threat.

So, again, what specifically was a threat to the US? Can anyone here that supported the war on those terms actually answer that question, or do you guys just hide behind vague and unsubstantiated statements like SDW?
post #185 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman Plus the fact that Iraq admitted to and declared these weapons and then refused to destroy all of them.

We aren't even getting into the conjecture. If they said they only ran their Anthrax facility at 20% of it's production capability, we aren't arguing the other 80% here. Rather they didn't even destroy the 20%.

really?

from my previous pos:
Quote:

Iraq claimed that it produced 8,445 litres of anthrax spores at al-Hakam, material which UNSCOM had some evidence that Iraq destroyed:

"There are various accounts derived from both [Iraq's declaration to UNSCOM] and independent Iraqi testimony concerning the destruction of bulk Agent B [ie, Bacillus anthracis spores]. Laboratory analysis of samples obtained at Al-Hakam has demonstrated the presence of viable Bacillus anthracis spores at an alleged bulk agent disposal site."

...

Since late February, the Iraqi government has been provided documentation to demonstrate its claim that it destroyed its anthrax stocks in 1991. An account was provided by Hans Blix in his 7 March 2003 statement to the Security Council:

"More papers on anthrax [..] have recently been provided. [...] Iraq proposed an investigation using advanced technology to quantify the amount of unilaterally destroyed anthrax dumped at a site. However, even if the use of advanced technology could quantify the amount of anthrax said to be dumped at the site, the results would still be open to interpretation. Defining the quantity of anthrax destroyed must, of course, be followed by efforts to establish what quantity was actually produced."

But any discussion of anthrax should also point out that the US (and every terrorist on earth) knows FROM EXPERIENCE that anthrax is not a threat to the US. It's probably one of the most inefficient terror weapons imaginable. So you probably shouldn't get too hung up on it if your goal is to try to make Iraq look like a threat.

Especially since Iraq's anthrax, if any was left, was not nearly as effective as what was in the letters. Hell, it wasn't even dried, so it couldn't be airborne.

There's nothing here that even remotely resembles a threat.
post #186 of 561
I ha
post #187 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
really?



But any discussion of anthrax should also point out that the US (and every terrorist on earth) knows FROM EXPERIENCE that anthrax is not a threat to the US. It's probably one of the most inefficient terror weapons imaginable. So you probably shouldn't get too hung up on it if your goal is to try to make Iraq look like a threat, esspecially since it looks like it was destroyed and that Iraq was apparently cooperating.

Cooperating would be your word for it. It is not mine. Claiming you dumped anthrax in the desert out of U.N. supervision and then asking for them to figure out a way of proving you did it is not my definition of "compliance."

I am not mentioning Anthrax to make it into a big, bad bogeyman. Rather to show how they handled matters. They wouldn't give open access, and would make false claims with no means of backing them up.

I quoted the very section of Blix you just quoted. It said the Iraqi's were giving as proof a list of, I believe it was 89 names of folks who could give anecdotal testimony that they had witnessed the anthrax being dumped.

They were supposed to declare the anthrax, bring it to the U.N. and then let the U.N. witness them destroying it.

This did not happen.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #188 of 561
I have read an interesting article about the subject in the Time magazine.
I will not resume it, but there where some interesting points in it :

- suppositions taking as facts : when the CIA make a report they made three interpretations : the better one (read : not serious threat) the middle one and the worse one. Bush admin systematically take the worst one and presented it as the only serious explanation.

- Rumsfeld tend to choose always the worse one, not for lying by intimate conviction, because he see the world as a potential threat.

- Wolfowitz and others , do not appreciate the CIA, saying that they are inneficients, so they create a special office, to interpret in a better way the threats.

- for the first time in history US make a sort of preemptive war based upon secret intelligence, probabily it will be the last time.
post #189 of 561
Anders:

Quote:
I have proof that you killed Kennedy, Ena is from Mars and Apple just lowered the price of their iBook.

Now do the least comment prevent me from being a liar

- The UNMOVIC list of issues (click) was not made up of such idiotic demands. They came from things that either Iraq declared or things that were discovered by inspectors
- Also, those things can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I was born in 1981; physical impossibility. Ena will have overwhelming evidence of Earth being his birthplace. Check Apple's price for today and compare with yesterday's price.

Your analogy is even dumber than pfflam's above in its sarcastic petulance. I'd even say it's insulting; I certainly consider it such.

--

giant:

Quote:
Violation of UN resolutions in itself is not a justification for war.

That's a subjective measurement. I think repeated violation of said sanctions/resolutions concerning deadly weapons over a decade are definitely worth forced disarmament. You say "no", I say "yes", the resolutions themselves are ambiguous.

Quote:
Can anyone here that supported the war on those terms actually answer that question, or do you guys just hide behind vague and unsubstantiated statements like SDW?

Since I'm not one who said he have to go into Iraq solely because they are threatening to the continental US I can't comment on that. But I can say that your logic is more full of holes than a fishing net. You grab dozens of subjective measurements and act as if they are concrete.

What is a threat?, For instance.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #190 of 561
earth to trumpetman
Quote:
"More papers on anthrax [..] have recently been provided. [...] Iraq proposed an investigation using advanced technology to quantify the amount of unilaterally destroyed anthrax dumped at a site. However, even if the use of advanced technology could quantify the amount of anthrax said to be dumped at the site, the results would still be open to interpretation. Defining the quantity of anthrax destroyed must, of course, be followed by efforts to establish what quantity was actually produced."

what you have been asking for is a perfect world. Unfortunately for you, in the physical world there is actually a process that people need to go through to get things done. All evidence demonstrates Iraqi compliance on this issue. Period.

And as I noted previously:

But any discussion of anthrax should also point out that the US (and every terrorist on earth) knows FROM EXPERIENCE that anthrax is not a threat to the US. It's probably one of the most inefficient terror weapons imaginable. So you probably shouldn't get too hung up on it if your goal is to try to make Iraq look like a threat.

Especially since Iraq's anthrax, if any was left, was not nearly as effective as what was in the letters. Hell, it wasn't even dried, so it couldn't be airborne.

There's nothing here that even remotely resembles a threat.
post #191 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat


What is a threat?, For instance.

I don't see Iraq as a threat. It is up to those that see it as a threat to demonstrate the threat.

This war with Iraq was a 'pre-emptive strike' against a 'threat'. This is what the whitehouse said, not me:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html
Quote:
Title: Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction


This is why we are not invading Israel, which is in much more flagrant violation of UN resolutions.

stop playing games.
post #192 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

-The UNMOVIC list of issues (click) was not made up of such idiotic demands. They came from things that either Iraq declared or things that were discovered by inspectors

And that was what I for the sake of the argument put as the lowering of iBook prices. THAT IS NOT WHAT IS ARGUED AGAINST BY ME OR THE TOPIC STARTER. ITS THE CLAIM OF THE CURRENT INTELLIGENS FINDINGS.

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
- Also, those things can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I was born in 1981; physical impossibility. Ena will have overwhelming evidence of Earth being his birthplace. Check Apple's price for today and compare with yesterday's price.

"Proven without reasonable doubt"? Well we haven´t had an investigation into that yet have we? Lets someone investigate into CIA, DIA and SPO and see what really happened on the build up to the war. A lot of things indicate that pressure was put on the agencies to come up with what the administration wanted to hear. Only one thing to do: Find out what happened.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
post #193 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

- The UNMOVIC list of issues (click) was not made up of such idiotic demands. They came from things that either Iraq declared or things that were discovered by inspectors

You still haven't read that document through, have you? Why the hell do you keep citing it when you can't point to anything in it that shows Iraq is a threat? I beg you (or anyone) to demonstrate that Iraq was a threat using specific and technical information.
post #194 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
earth to trumpetman

what you have been asking for is a perfect world. Unfortunately for you, in the physical world there is actually a process that people need to go through to get things done. All evidence demonstrates Iraqi compliance on this issue. Period.

And as I noted previously:

But any discussion of anthrax should also point out that the US (and every terrorist on earth) knows FROM EXPERIENCE that anthrax is not a threat to the US. It's probably one of the most inefficient terror weapons imaginable. So you probably shouldn't get too hung up on it if your goal is to try to make Iraq look like a threat.

Especially since Iraq's anthrax, if any was left, was not nearly as effective as what was in the letters. Hell, it wasn't even dried, so it couldn't be airborne.

There's nothing here that even remotely resembles a threat.

You are high.

I am not asking for a perfect world. I am asking for compliance.

Your definition of compliance.

Inspectors arrive..

Inspectors:Oh open the gates, we need to look inside.

Iraqi guard:Oh the guy with the key, he is on vacation. Come back tomorrow.

Inspectors: You have declared that you have 8500 liters of Anthrax, where is it?

Iraqi guard: Oh, well, we dumped that in the desert.


You call my unwillingness to accept this nonsense asking for a "perfect world."

My definition of compliance

Inspectors: You have declared 8,500 liters of anthrax. Bring it this designated spot and we will watch you destoy it.

Iraqi guard: Yes, we will bring it and destroy it.

I don't have access to the archive (because it is paid) but this Time magazine article related exactly what I am talking about.

Time Cover

It doesn't require a perfect world. It requires compliance and an unwillingness to tolerate lies.

As for the wet anthrax, again I won't debate wet vs. dry because they weren't suppose to have either.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #195 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
My definition of compliance

You definition doesn't matter. What matters is the fact that all evidence points to Iraqi compliance on this issue and you can provide no evidence otherwise. End of story.

However, it would be good to realize that your defintion of compliance on this issue is not the same as UNMOVIC's, since UNMOVIC wants to focus on research into production, not specifically disposal. Iraq was providing papers. You should notice that even though you are accustomed to everything being on computer, this is not the case here and that makes research of this kind very difficult. It is not realistic to look at set-backs as only due to Iraqi non-compliance. In fact, 9 times out of 10 it can be attributed to disorganization, human error, etc.

Quote:
I don't have access to the archive (because it is paid) but this Time magazine article related exactly what I am talking about.

Time Cover

You should really get a higher quality news source. The atlantic had an amazing article on the world of saddam:
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/05/bowden.htm

long story short, he doesn't even really know what goes on in his country. When you see how disorganized it is, the difficult inspections start to make more sense.

Quote:
As for the wet anthrax, again I won't debate wet vs. dry because they weren't suppose to have either.

But that's the entire point. We invaded Iraq because it was a portrayed as a threat (as the white house says, not me), not because of UN violations or even simply any weapons. If that was the case, there are other countries to be invaded, one of which is almost a 51st state.

Anyway, all available evidence points to destruction of anthrax stocks. Whatever was left, if anything was, was not a threat and therefore does not justify war conducted for the expressed purpose of preempting a threat. Plain and simple. You can't avoid this.

You might try to play games to avoid dealing with the reality of the situation, but in the end you are just fooling yourself.
post #196 of 561
giant:

Quote:
I don't see Iraq as a threat. It is up to those that see it as a threat to demonstrate the threat.

So it's up to someone else to prove to you something you don't want to believe? Interesting.

If they consider it a threat how do you tell them it's not? It's subjective. Your interpretation is not infallible.

--

Anders:

Quote:
And that was what I for the sake of the argument put as the lowering of iBook prices. THAT IS NOT WHAT IS ARGUED AGAINST BY ME OR THE TOPIC STARTER. ITS THE CLAIM OF THE CURRENT INTELLIGENS FINDINGS.

But your logic at the base of it is flawed. It was and is no one's responsibility to find anything in Iraq. Finding WMD in Iraq means NOTHING legally for the US now. It means nothing, except to those with political interests. That's it.

Even if Bush himself were to discover a huge underground nuke project live on Al-Jazeera it would mean nothing legally. Nothing.

And this is something you guys don't seem to understand.

Quote:
"Proven without reasonable doubt"? Well we haven´t had an investigation into that yet have we? Lets someone investigate into CIA, DIA and SPO and see what really happened on the build up to the war. A lot of things indicate that pressure was put on the agencies to come up with what the administration wanted to hear. Only one thing to do: Find out what happened

Find out what happened, by all means. Investigate your asses off, it doesn't mean anything until you get something real. The "evidence" against Bush at this point is laughable and no one can even pin a solid claim against him.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #197 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

So it's up to someone else to prove to you something you don't want to believe? Interesting.

If they consider it a threat how do you tell them it's not? It's subjective. Your interpretation is not infallible.

Wrong. It is a technical question, and you are doing a piss-poor job of avoiding answering it.
post #198 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
The "evidence" against Bush at this point is laughable and no one can even pin a solid claim against him.

If you are referring to the evidence that the Bush admin (including Bush himself) lied and skewed intelligence reports, it's already been demonstrated thoroughly.

Bush cited ficticious IAEA reports. The entire bush admin cited forged documents trying to demonstrate a nuclear program. They cited construction at al-furat saying it was defintive proof of a renewed program, which was later demonstrated wrong. The list goes on and on and on and on and on. These are things that there is NO QUESTION ABOUT and are not open to interpretation.
post #199 of 561
[edit]
post #200 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
But your logic at the base of it is flawed. It was and is no one's responsibility to find anything in Iraq. Finding WMD in Iraq means NOTHING legally for the US now. It means nothing, except to those with political interests. That's it.

I agree with this. Even the part about this being a political question. What is importent is: Did the Bush administration know what they said was not true, secondary was twisted enough to be considered very questionable despite presented as facts to the US congress, UN SC, GB, Polan, Australia, Denmark and whoever else reacted on the information by supporting the US lead war against Iraq.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Lies and the Presidency